On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Timothy Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2004 WI App 116, reversed on other grounds, 2005 WI 104
For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:

¶10 The State points out that omissions in jury instructions are subject to a harmless-error analysis. See State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶6, 254 Wis. 2d 442, 647 N.W.2d 189.

State v. Sylvester Sigarroa, 2004 WI App 16, PFR filed 1/2/04
For Sigarroa: John Pray, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: A witness’s improper reference to the defendant’s prior criminal history was not prejudicial, where the judge ordered it struck, gave the standard final instruction on ignoring all things stricken, and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. ¶27.

Also see State v. Gary M.B.

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz
Issue/Holding:

¶11. A defendant’s right to testify is a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Simpson, 185 Wis. 2d 772, 778, 519 N.W.2d 662, 663 (Ct. App. 1994). A defendant may, however, waive the right to testify. State v. Wilson, 179 Wis. 2d 660,

State v. Olayinka Kazeem Lagundoye, 2004 WI 4, affirming 2003 WI App 63, 260 Wis. 2d 805, 659 N.W.2d 501
For Lagundoye: Geoffrey Y. Muwonge

Issue/Holding:

¶26. Likewise, it is clear that under Wisconsin’s formulation of the Teague doctrine, the rule we announced in Douangmala was “new.” “‘[A] case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.’” 

State v. Sylvester Sigarroa, 2004 WI App 16
For Sigarroa: John Pray, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:

¶28. We do not end our discussion here. Instead, we are compelled to admonish the increasing pattern of witness and/or attorney violation of in limine orders. On several occasions, we have spent judicial time and resources to make a very similar admonition. Unfortunately, it appears our reproach has fallen on deaf ears because the pattern of these violations continues.¶29.

State v. Anou Lo, 2003 WI 107, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals; habeas relief denied, Lo v. Endicott, 7th Cir No. 06-3948, 10/26/07
For Lo: Robert R. Henak
Amicus Briefs: Joseph N. Ehmann, Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD; Meredith J. Ross, Walter J. Dickey, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶2. The petitioner, Anou Lo, asks that we overrule our decision in State v.

State ex rel Norman O. Brown v. Bradley, 2003 WI 14, on original petition for writ of habeas corpus
For Brown: Greg J. Carman

Issue/Holding:

¶1. The Petitioner, Norman O. Brown, seeks reinstatement of his petition for review which was previously dismissed as untimely filed. Brown contends that this court should apply retroactively the tolling rule for pro se prisoners that it adopted in State ex rel.

State v. John Norman, 2003 WI 72, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Norman: Angela Kachelski

Issue/Holding: Norman’s failure on appeal to develop an argument analytically necessary to the issue he raises waives his right to have that issue reviewed. ¶64.

State v. Phonesavanh Vanmanivong, 2003 WI 41, reversing, 2001 WI App 299
For Vanmanivong: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding: Trial court failure to order disclosure of an informant is subject to harmless error analysis. The state, as beneficiary of the error, bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the error didn’t contribute to the verdict. Here, the error was harmless: the error in the trial court’s finding that disclosure was unnecessary was procedural in nature (because it was based on unsworn rather than sworn in camera assertions and because it was procured by the judge rather than the litigants);

State v. John S. Cooper, 2003 WI App 227, PFR filed 11/14/03
For Cooper: John A. Birdsall
Issue/Holding:

¶23. As a final matter, this court notes with dismay the multiple citations to unpublished opinions contained in Cooper’s appellate brief. The Rules of Appellate Procedure proscribe as follows:

Unpublished opinions not cited. An unpublished opinion is of no precedential value and for this reason may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority,